Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoplophobia (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoplophobia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a sufficiently notable neologism (WP:NEO). Previous AfD from two years ago was closed no consensus, but most of the keep arguments look pretty poor. The article as it is is extraordinary poor and poorly sourced, but this is not a nomination based on the present article but rather due to being unable to find sufficient sources demonstrating that this term is notable. ("Term" is important, as a source that talks about the fear of guns but doesn't use this term is not about this subject). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 03:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 03:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I opined for keeping at the last discussion (the extended discussion is there). I don't think the keep opinions were particularly weak, in fact the delete side of the argument contained the WP:JUSTAVOTEs that encouraged me toward the other side. There are sources like this which talk about the term in the context of its listing in Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders (2006), refuting the little bit of WP:OR in the article and without mentioning Cooper. If anything, the term is more widely used and cited now than it was in 2009 from the looks of it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, either the subject is about a term or it's about a disorder. Once we choose which the article is about, a whole lot of sources are ruled out. If it's a real phobia, all sources have to meet standards of WikiProject Psychology and/or, depending on the context, WP:MEDRS. Both of those remove Cooper, who is central to the article. If, however, it's a "term" and not a psychological disorder, the psychological disorder sources are irrelevant as they would be about some little-known disorder and not about the term coined by Cooper. &mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know where you're coming from but I disagree that it needs to be one or the other. It can just as easily be a term that some have argued fits the description of a phobia. It's like the Chalice of Doña Urraca - most agree its a nice goblet, some argue it's the Holy Grail. So we cover both in the article. No reason we can't do the same here. It's not really up to us to decide anyway.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is sufficient mainstream RS usage of the term, e.g., the [Pittsburgh paper.] <b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 10:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just to be more clear: the article is either about the neologism which is, to take from the opinion column links above, "a tongue-in-cheek neurosis 'discovered' in 1962 by firearms instructor Jeff Cooper to mock those who think guns have free will" or it is a mental disorder, in which case Cooper is not a reliable source and all we have are scant mentions in lists of psychological sources. What we need are substantial sources about the term or about the disorder, and I haven't seen that. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As if "Islamophobia" were a legitimate mental disorder rather than a smear. What matters is that it is being used.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 13:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The concept is discussed using that explicit term in:
 * Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law (2012) ABC-CLIO. According to that source, haplophobia is also discussed in Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders (2006) Handbooks in Health Care, (written by two professors at Emory University and already in the article).
 * The term is also listed and defined in:
 * A Dictionary of Psychology (2015). Oxford University Press.
 * These are reputable academic publishers. The term and concept is also discussed in academic journals, e.g.
 * "Gun concealment, display, and other magical habits of the body" (2014, Critique of Anthropology, Sage Publications. Quote: "He laments the way pro-gun control Christians misquote the Bible, reasoning, 'But a deeper inspection of the matter will reveal that Christian hoplophobia [fear of guns] is a very recent phenomenon, and that it is largely confined to the theologically and politically liberal wing...'")
 * "Workplace Violence: The Role of Fear in Paralyzing Modern Business/Corporate Security" (2014, Journal of Applied Business and Economics).
 * It's also defined explicitly in
 * "German physicians against war since 1870" (1990, Medicine and War, Taylor & Francis).
 * So, the term is at least 25 years old. The case for claiming this term as a non-notable neologism is pretty weak. The case for improving the article, however, is very strong. Good quality sources to enable that do exist. The problem is the article currently seems to be a slugfest between editors with differing points of view. Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These are mainly about the disorder, but the parts of these sources truly about the disorder, rather than the neologism aren't much more than scant mentions. An encyclopedia about guns, an anthropology journal, and a business journal are furthermore not reliable sources for medical/psychological information. I'm not saying sources don't exist, and I appreciate you bringing these here, but the sources that exist are a combination of unreliable, brief mentions, or about the term. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we need enough material for an encyclopedia article, too. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the sources I listed are not mainly about the disorder, they are about the cultural phenomenon and the word used to express it. "Hoplophobia" is not simply a term. It is a concept, one that is widely discussed, whether or not it is a "medical condition". That argues for changing the focus of the article, not for deleting it. It is quite valid to have an article about a concept and the common term used to express it, how it had been used in the literature of various disciplines and at various times, the cultural ramifications of "fear of weapons" etc. You are misinterpreting "not a dictionary", in my view, unless of course you think Islamophobia, Existential quantification, Divertissement etc. should likewise not be articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually look at Islamophobia. It says verbatim "The word Islamophobia is a neologism" and the reason it's included in Wikipedia is because there are so many sources about the subject as "prejudice against, hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam, Muslims, or of ethnic groups perceived to be Muslim". It does not purport to be a psychological disorder and does not require citing sources which call it as much because it's not that. This, on the other hand, entirely depends on sources which talk about it being a purported mental disorder, including sources you just cited. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, no. The first source I gave discusses it in the context of "demonization", a cultural phenomenon, including the use of the term itself as a cultural phenomenon. The article in Critique of Anthropology likewise discusses it as a cultural phenomenon. The article in Medicine and War discusses it not as a psychiatric disorder but in the context of the history of opposition in the German medical profession to weapons of war in themselves, again a cultural phenomenon. Yes, it's a neologism. Yes, it's a cultural phenomenon. No, it is probably not a "medical condition" in the strictest sense. Reliable sources are available for a short article about the cultural phenomenon, the term which has been coined to describe it, and indeed the use of the term itself as a cultural phenomenon. There is no need to write the article as if were a medical condition or to delete the article simply because it is not a medical condition. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to merging some of the information about the term/concept as a cultural phenomenon into another article {if an appropriate one exists, possibly Jeff Cooper?) and turning Hoplophobia into a redirect. As Nyttend points out, it's a term people are highly likely to search for. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The nominator is apparently wrong in saying that this isn't a sufficiently established term, but the whole thing is a dictionary-style entry.  We an are encyclopedia, and encyclopedias cover concepts.  I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting it, since the article easily demonstrates that people will be searching for it (gun politics would be a good target, but it's a redirect to Overview of gun laws by nation), but deletion would definitely be the best choice if we don't redirect it.  Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is not merely a neologism, but an actual condition for which treatment is provided. The article clearly needs improvement, but the topic needs to be covered. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jeff Cooper. It's still a neologism.  Mini  apolis  23:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Islamophobia is a neologism. Would you support deleting it?<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 17:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * DELETE This, as has been pointed out before, is just a word that deserves no more than a dictionary entry and a passing reference in the article about Jeff Cooper, who claimed to have created the term as a pejorative used to insult those who disagreed with his opinions and favoured gun control. It is not a medical or psychological condition and is listed only in any medical/psychological dictionaries as a label for what must be a very rare phobia (the list of phobias is endless). Except as part of the vernacular of the US gun culture, this word has no significance and no importance. It may have found some utility elsewhere as a term but typically still only in reference to the gun culture of the US. It most certainly is not a medical condition; there is already an adequate entry in Wiktionary; and the rest can be covered off in the Jeff Cooper article explaining how he took credit for creating it, and that he created it to berate those who did not agree with his views on gun ownership and gun control.99.242.102.111 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By equivalent rationale, would you agree that Islamophobia should be shunted off into some other article as simply being "part of the vernacular" of Islamist propaganda? It's not a medical condition either.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think that Islamophobia is used by people worldwide in correspondence with worldwide extremist terrorism. Its frequency and ubiquity of use would probably make it more than just part of the vernacular of any particular group. It is a neologism and its merits are certainly debatable, however, and it could also be subject to an AFD.99.242.102.111 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: 99.242.102.111 !votes delete on the basis that the subject is not taken seriously as an actual medical condition (there being, at that time, a "Medical status" section in the article largely being used as a coatrack for straw-man fallacy dismissals). I agree that such claims are bullshit, and remove the offending section.. What happens next? He adds it right back in, because, I can only surmise, he needs the article to continue looking ugly in order to entice additional delete !votes.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 14:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouch. No. I am trying to be fair to the others here who do believe it is a medical condition (read here and in the Hoplophobia talk page). I agree that it is not a medical condition. The entry as it is now is equivalent to the Wiktionary entry. I don't think this term deserves its own WP entry and I voted for it to be deleted. If people are looking for "Hoplophobia," a redirect to the Jeff Cooper page should be all that's needed in Wikipedia.99.242.102.111 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - article clearly needs improvements. but that is not a reason to delete a article that clearly is within WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiktionary material. IF a GOOD RS is found connecting it to Cooper, it merits inclusion in his article. Lightbreather (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of RS demonstrating mainstream usage; therefore the article can stand on its own.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 04:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a policy on this: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I've never heard of this term, but it seems little more than that since its not a real phobia and the Wiktionary article seems adequate. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's used enough as a term as well as describing a trend to anthropomorphize certain weapons when they are used in crimes or when cosmetic appearance/differences deems them more dangerous. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.